The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the General Manager and Reviewing Authority of Canara Bank against an order of a single judge that quashed the disciplinary proceedings against an employee. The court strongly criticized the hasty manner in which the proceedings were conducted and reaffirmed the necessity of procedural fairness in such matters.
A bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Vadamalai observed that while disciplinary proceedings typically take months to conclude, in this case, the entire process was completed within just two weeks. The court held that the committee had exhibited undue haste in bringing the inquiry to a close, which raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.
"A disciplinary proceeding should not resemble a point-to-point bullet train journey. A charge memo need not necessarily culminate in punishment. The delinquent employee stands the chance of being exonerated also. The proceedings should therefore be conducted in a manner that is pregnant with the possibility of 'two roads diverging in the yellow woods.' There must be halting stations, and the halts should be meaningful and not for the sake of it."
Read Also:- Madras High Court: Grama Natham Land Becomes Private Property Upon Recognized Occupation
The case involved an employee who had served as the Branch Manager of Canara Bank between 2007 and 2009. Allegations were leveled against him for sanctioning a large number of loans to self-help groups. Although he was transferred in 2009, a charge memo listing seven articles of charge was issued in 2012.
The court noted several procedural lapses in the disciplinary process. The employee was given only 15 days to respond to the charge memo, yet the inquiry commenced even before his reply was received. Moreover, the entire inquiry, including the examination of 17 witnesses and marking of 96 documents, was completed in just two days. The inquiry officer submitted his report within a few days, and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service merely four days later.
The management argued that their internal investigations had revealed serious procedural lapses in the employee’s actions as a sanctioning authority, leading to financial losses for the bank. They contended that the bank was justified in imposing strict punishment and that the writ court could not assume the role of a fact-finder or determine the severity of the penalty.
However, the High Court found that, despite procedural compliance, there was excessive haste in the process. The inquiry was conducted at an unreasonably fast pace, disregarding the principles of fairness and due process. The court also pointed out that the inquiry report was given to the employee even before it was officially submitted to the disciplinary authority, making the entire process appear predetermined and unfair.
"When it comes to adherence to principles of procedural fairness, we would expect the employer to be an exemplar. They cannot take advantage of the acquiescence on the part of the employee. By no stretch of imagination can the process that had taken place in this case be held to be fair. On this sole ground, interference is justified."
Read Also:- Madras High Court Questions Tamil Nadu Government Over ED Searches at TASMAC Headquarters
Furthermore, the court observed that the employee may have been led to believe that cooperation in the proceedings would result in leniency, as no employee would ordinarily participate without first submitting a defense statement. The court described the employee as being "led like a lamb to be mercilessly slaughtered."
The court also noted that the orders issued by both the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to provide a detailed account of the employee’s defense, making them "non-speaking" orders. Given the evident lack of fairness, the court found no reason to interfere with the single judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling:
- Disciplinary proceedings must be conducted with procedural fairness and reasonable speed.
- Undue haste in such proceedings can lead to their invalidation.
- The employer must ensure that the inquiry process allows for meaningful participation and a fair chance for the employee to present their defense.
- A disciplinary process must not be premeditated; it should allow for all possible outcomes, including exoneration.
This ruling reinforces the principle that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done, ensuring fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Upholds Minority Institutions’ Rights Against UGC Regulations
Case Details:
Case Title: The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal
Case No: WA(MD)No.932 of 2021
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Dilip Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M.E. Ilango
Court: Madras High Court
